Appeal No. 2000-1727
Application 08/486,114
The first step in our analysis is determining the scope of
Appellants’ claim. As the Federal Circuit has pointed out, “the
name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d
1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
In determining the scope of Appellants’ claims, we find that
Appellants’ claims 33 and 44 claim two separate modes, such as in
the first mode only one picture is recorded even if the record
trigger is sustained and in the second mode a continuous picture
is recorded when the record trigger is sustained. Both claims 33
and 44 claim:
change-over means for changing over a first mode wherein an
image signal for only one picture is recorded even when said
record trigger is sustained and a second mode where the
image signal comprising more than one picture is
continuously recorded on said recording medium as long as
said record trigger is sustained wherein said change-over
means being arranged to previously change-over said first
mode and said second mode before the recording operation of
the image signal.
We agree that Morishita does teach two modes, one for
imaging and one for a series of repetitive images. Morishita
also teaches a switch being used to switch between two modes.
However, Morishita does not teach Appellants’ claimed change-over
means for changing over a first mode wherein an image signal for
only one picture is recorded even when said record trigger is
sustained and a second mode where the image signal comprising
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007